| Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG) | |
| Court: | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
| Full Name: | The Proprietary Articles Trade Association and others v The Attorney-General of Canada and others |
| Citations: | [1931] UKPC 11 (BAILII), [1931] AC 310, [1931] 2 DLR 1, [1931] 1 WWR 552, 55 CCC 241 |
| Judges: | Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Merrivale, Lord Atkin, Lord Russell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan |
| Number Of Judges: | 5 |
| Decision By: | Lord Atkin |
| Prior Actions: | Reference re Validity of the Combines Investigation Act and of s. 498 of the Criminal Code. 1929. scc. 90. canlii. [1929] SCR 409. 1929-04-30. |
| Appealed From: | Supreme Court of Canada |
Proprietary Articles Trade Association v Canada (AG),[1] is a Canadian constitutional decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Constitution's criminal law power under section 91(27).
Following the Board of Commerce case (in which the Privy Council determined that two Acts were ultra vires federal jurisdiction), the Parliament of Canada passed the Combines Investigation Act, 1923,[2] which provided for:
The Criminal Code was also amended by inserting s. 498, which created a corresponding offence of combining to limit facilities, restrain commerce, or lessen manufacture or competition. These measures essentially repeated the previous legislation, without employing the regulatory framework that had previously been found to be unconstitutional.
The Proprietary Articles Trade Association was formed in Canada in 1925, with objects similar to organizations of the same name formed in several other Commonwealth countries.[3] It was investigated under the Act, and found to be a combine within its scope.
The following reference questions were posed to the Supreme Court of Canada:
The Supreme Court unanimously held that both measures were intra vires federal jurisdiction, by virtue of the federal criminal law power. As to Lord Haldane's restrictive interpretation that had been previously enunciated in the Board of Commerce case, Newcombe J said:
The Board upheld the Supreme Court ruling. In his judgment, Lord Atkin rejected Lord Haldane's previous interpretation of criminal law in Canada, as it froze the scope of criminal law to what was considered criminal at the time of Confederation in 1867. He endorsed Newcombe J's view of the matter. Instead, Atkin offered a new definition:
This statement suggested two requirements for criminal law. It must consist of a prohibition and must impose a prison sentence.
While not having to decide on the applicability of the trade and commerce power in this, the Board expressed a desire to clarify an aspect of their previous ruling in Board of Commerce. In the current case, it had been argued that Board of Commerce held that the trade and commerce power could be used only in furtherance of a general power that the Parliament of Canada had independently of it. It was emphasized that that was not the correct interpretation, and that the power existed as a separate grant of authority.
Atkin's definition of what criminal law is has had a lasting impact throughout Commonwealth jurisprudence.[4] In Canadian constitutional law, it was subsequently refined in 1949 in the Margarine Reference case to more properly reflect the Canadian division of powers.